by equating these to dailyKos or Foxnews or Breitbart, it truly shows how far gone you are and how little you know. This not only shows my original thesis (postmodern identity politics) to be correct, but also adds yet another example on the danger of identity politics. Again, you do you.

You read about a theory and then went out and found examples to "prove" it. Posting a handful of examples about PC at colleges does not equal unequivocal proof that identity politics is rampant at universities. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole because it aligns with your personal experience and biases.

Your failure to see this shows how far gone you are and how little you know.

I have given some examples in my lengthy post, here I will point out two biggest public examples: All Lives Matter was thoroughly denounced in favor of a more exclusive slogan, and DNC rally in 2016. Rasmussen Reports in 2015 clearly showed how whites felt about All Lives Matter vs Black Lives Matter (you can see how whites reacted).

So we've got kinda a funny situation here until you dig a bit deeper into the background. 'All Lives Matter' is a reactionary slogan used by those opposed to and critical of the existing 'Black Lives Matter' political movement. 'All Lives Matter' has often been used to dismiss the differences in danger faced by people of colour who are disproportionately at risk when dealing with the police. This is the reason that candidates didn't support use of the phrase. A universalist approach doesn't really work when one minority group is treated significantly differently by authority than another. The candidates did not decide that black lives matter more than other lives (as you seem to be implying).

As a generic white dude though, if someone asks me if 'All Lives Matter' I'm going to say yes . . . because I'm probably not aware that it's an anti-Black Lives Matter slogan. So the results of the survey that you posted aren't very shocking.

People who challenge the notion of cultural appropriation and white privilege has been recent years labeled racists and bigots, shamed relentlessly on social media (medium?); the incidents at Evergreen College and Middleburry are by no means isolated, but more of a snapshot of the bigger picture.

The Evergreen College incident you're talking about, the college overstepped it's bounds. The professor involved resigned, and then sued the college . . . and settled out of court, receiving half a million dollars for the college's mistake. As with the Canadian example previously brought up, this story was newsworthy because of it's rarity.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to regarding Middleburry College. Are you talking about the violent protest that occurred regarding White Supremacist Charles Murray's scheduled talk about the genetic inferiority of Black and Latino people? If so, I'd argue that violence is never acceptable during a protest . . . but that violent protests do happen during both right and left wing gatherings. By no means are they exclusive to one political spectrum.

Like I said, for much of modern era, whites had been making the society more egalitarian for all (Universal)

Really? I seem to remember a pretty strong backlash by whites against the civil rights movement in the 60s. I seem to remember a backlash against the women's rights movement from the 60s to the 90s. I seem to remember a similar backlash against the gay rights movement from the 90s to today.

Can you provide some examples of white people proactively making society more egalitarian for all? Historically, there has always been inequality and only after the oppressed minority group has risen up and forced change do things start to improve.

then came the rise of identity politics where minority groups seek to exclude whites, that doesn't sit well with many whites. Not only that, almost every other group is encouraged to complain some social injustice that they had suffered.... except the whites. Does it not make you wonder, why is this group missing (in terms of proportion)? Or do you seriously believe that all whites have little to complain about. Please read the quote of the lower-middle class white guy in my lengthy post.

Racism used to have clear meanings, but now some think that a simple "emotional disconnect" is enough to suffice such accusation for a postmodernist believer, also note how the author promotes "positive discrimination" against whites.

I think I've provided plenty of evidence of how minorities alienate whites, if it is not up to your satisfaction, could you explain what constitutes as evidence to you?

You've provided a refusal of democratic nominees to endorse an anti-black lives matter slogan (which doesn't really seem to be too surprising or particularly exclusive of white people), and mentioned two colleges (three if you count the Canadian one) where people on the left made mistakes, overstepped their bounds, and then were reprimanded for their actions.

What I'm looking for is not a couple unusual anecdotes . . . I'm looking for data. Maybe a widespread study - something showing evidence that your college examples are the norm in the US (say that they occur on 51% or greater of campuses). Maybe a study showing that progressive groups seek to exclude white people the majority of the time. I'm looking for more than a few anecdotes and your own take on it, because they don't match up with my anecdotes and my own take on it.

One last note.... notice how I gave examples of actual events where minorities excluded whites, including how the whites felt about it (Rasmussen Reports), and how the white votes changed in 2012 and 2016. So far, all I am getting from you are your perspective from your experiences..... recall what I said.....

"Trump won white voters by a margin almost identical to that of Mitt Romney, who lost the popular vote to Barack Obama in 2012. White non-Hispanic voters preferred Trump over Clinton by 21 percentage points (58% to 37%), according to the exit poll conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool. Romney won whites by 20 percentage points in 2012 (59% to 39%)."

we see the shift from reason and rational argument to personal experience and testimony, which forms the basics of identity politics: perspectives of social groups with which people identify.

You've provided me with a couple anecdotes . . . which you've used personal experience and testimony to draw conclusions from. There appears to be no actual data supporting your claims. Hence why I was asking for evidence, which you have failed to provide so far.

Guitar, you raised many good points, I will attempt to address them one by one (per post).

First, let's do colleges progressive bias and see if any "widespread study" supports this assertion. I present to you a study about the social and personality psychologists who contribute to the basis of progressive movements and campus policies today, and show that indeed there is a systematic bias against conservatives among the scholars themselves.

The following is largely from 538, the original contains many other studies investigating a systematic liberal bias against conservatives.

A survey of more than 500 social and personality psychologists published in 2012 found that only 6 percent identified as conservative overall, though there was more diversity on economic and foreign policy issues.1 The survey also found that 37.5 percent of respondents expressed a willingness to discriminate against conservative colleagues when making hiring decisions. Psychologists, it appears, tend to fall on the liberal end of the political spectrum.

Social psychology’s left tilt has been widelydiscussed, yet it has been difficult to measure how political leanings influence the work that the field produces. But a new study has tried to quantify just that, and it found that social psychologists assess conservatives differently than liberals. It also found that scientists were aware of the potential for problems and willing to acknowledge them. The results confirm that a lack of political diversity within psychology may bias its findings on political issues.

The new study, by an international team of researchers, will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and had two parts....The effect sizes they found were “not huge,” Uhlmann said, but they were present. “For a randomly chosen abstract there’s about a 60 percent chance of it describing liberals more favorably than conservatives, and a 56 percent chance of it explaining conservatives more,” he said. (If there were no difference, you’d expect both numbers to be 50 percent.)

These differences are “statistically small, but the practical significance is potentially high,” Uhlmann said. Most effect sizes in social psychology are quite small, he said, but when they occur across society (or an entire field), their consequences can add up.

The abstract of the new study reads: The present investigation provides the first systematic empirical tests for the role of politics in academic research. In a large sample of scientific abstracts from the field of social psychology, we find both evaluative differences, such that conservatives are described more negatively than liberals, and explanatory differences, such that conservatism is more likely to be the focus of explanation than liberalism.

and its conclusionThe present research informs this discussion by providing the first empirical evidence of systematic effects of political values on research reports in a scientific field.

I showed you there is a systematic bias among the scholars, who are liberal leaning and are biased against conservatives. These scholars, their works go on to influencepolicies directly, resulting in a predominately left leaning (liberal), if not progressive, culture in colleges.

Now obviously we don't know how many of those people are radical progressives and how many simply liberal. Yet we tend to observe the presence of radical progressives on campus, which suggests that's where they congregate. At the very minimum, this new widespread study, in addition to old ones, provides some support to my assertion that the radical progressive (due to the silent majority phenomenon) doctrines are institutionalized in colleges whose policies were influenced by these scholars and their work.

caution regarding the result:Alice Eagly, a psychologist at Northwestern University, called it “a good demonstration of some bias” but cautioned that “it’s a very narrow demonstration” that focused on a single type of bias: in-group bias, the tendency to favor one’s own group. “This must not be portrayed as a big demonstration that psychology has a liberal bias, because it’s a very, very narrow demonstration of how people think of liberals and how they think of conservatives,” Eagly said.

Yes, a very narrow demonstration was made to ensure the results are robust, but taken together with previous studies where "37.5 percent of respondents expressed a willingness to discriminate against conservative colleagues when making hiring decisions" it not only tell you there is bias, but discrimination is also likely.

More studies need to be done to investigate further, but this very first wide scale study leans toward my assertion.

That's quite a stretch. Your argument is that colleges skew left (so far so good), therefore they are bastions of exclusionary anti-white policy (that's the unproven off the rails bit that I am having trouble accepting as fact). You could probably support the thesis that conservatives on campus have a harder time though.

anisotropy's post was the best I've ever seen on the political boards here; it shall be emblazoned on the 69-dollar bill once Trump is reelected (for life).

The link of the rise of Trump to post-modernism is highly relevant but it's interesting to consider what underlies that trend: the West has been unusually successful since the Age of Reason in developing technological, scientific, and institutional strengths that have yielded an ever-growing surplus of wealth and relative security that has allowed for the insulated curation of garbage-ideologies such as post-modernism (even if correct, post-modernism is self-defeating). Robin Hanson describes our era as the dream time:

Quote

When our distant descendants think about our era, however, differences will loom larger. Yes they will see that we were more like them in knowing more things, and in having less contact with a wild nature. But our brief period of very rapid growth and discovery and our globally integrated economy and culture will be quite foreign to them. Yet even these differences will pale relative to one huge difference: our lives are far more dominated by consequential delusions: wildly false beliefs and non-adaptive values that matter. While our descendants may explore delusion-dominated virtual realities, they will well understand that such things cannot be real, and don’t much influence history. In contrast, we live in the brief but important “dreamtime” when delusions drove history. Our descendants will remember our era as the one where the human capacity to sincerely believe crazy non-adaptive things, and act on those beliefs, was dialed to the max.

Of course, there is the idea that a truly accurate perception of reality is generally a mal-adaptive trait (from a biological evolutionary fitness perspective and probably also in the mimetic sense), in which case, Karl Popper may have been peak Popper and we are going to descend into an oblivion dominated by the Twitteratti, Fake News (tm), and irate virtue-signaling circle-jerks.

That's quite a stretch. Your argument is that colleges skew left (so far so good), therefore they are bastions of exclusionary anti-white policy (that's the unproven off the rails bit that I am having trouble accepting as fact). You could probably support the thesis that conservatives on campus have a harder time though.

fair enough, my "college bias" bit so far was only meant to support the thesis that conservatives on campus are being marginalized (I hesitate to say discriminated against).

The exclusionary against white (on campus and in general) thesis comes next. I think we are both reasonable people, so I will do us both justice and present my points as well supported as I can. Thank you for your patience.

anisotropy's post was the best I've ever seen on the political boards here; it shall be emblazoned on the 69-dollar bill once Trump is reelected (for life).

I am not sure how to respond.... was it sarcasm? was it mockery? was it serious? hmmmBut yes, Hanson has done great work regarding bias, I must confess I find his "financial stake" idea interesting. Back when I was working (oil exploration), a "game" the management would do was to ask the exploration team how much % of their salary they were willing to bet on the new prospect, which shares a similar vein.

This seems like a lot of words to absolve Republicans of their blame for voting for an unstable idiot. I had to vote for Trump because freshmen at Middlebury College are mean and some psychology professors are kind of biased? Sure-I bet that's why Stan the retired cop in Indiana voted for him. He's totally scared of offending those SJW at Middlebury.

It's quite a contortion to say that the political discourse is fact-free and then just slide right on by President Birther, the Fox News empire, and the climate change and evolution-denying Republican party to land on Middlebury college students as the epicenter of the Death of Facts. If only those Middlebury SJW knew how powerful they were. Do you suppose they also are responsible for conservatives not believing in evolution?

It's time for the party of personal responsibilityTM to take some. If you voted for Donald Trump, that's on you. It's not my fault, it's not Obama's fault, it's not Hillary's fault, and it's not the fault of the members of The Middlebury College SJW Drum Circle and Pronoun Police. We warned you. Indeed, we told you so.

Doesn’t the lack of conservative politics on a college campus kind of make sense? Young people are generally more liberal. Besides, what is conservatism after all but the idea of strictly interpreting the constitution and generally holding to the status quo. Isn’t that mindset kind of at odds with education, research and discovery? Most of the new ideas that Peterson (for example) talks about has the basic end goal of well....not doing anything because they believe civil rights in it current form is misguided. Gender and racial differences are what they are, inherent, so lets just not change anything and let people hire who they want....etc... However, many people, particularly minorities and women, are on campus today because of those civil rights initiatives, so the bias is kind of built in because those programs benefited them directly.

It’s kind of funny when you think about it. The same people that want to end affirmative action for women and minorities seem to want to implement something like it on college campuses for conservatives. You would think that irony might mean that conservatives would have some understanding and empathy.

Now all that being said, people who try to keep conservatives from speaking on campus at all are hilariously stupid and repressive, but like others in this thread have suggested, this is probably a bit overblown in the same fashion that the racist assholes in Charlottesville don’t represent the entire GOP. It makes good headlines.

I was a conservative back in my college days and never really felt discriminated against, although I was definitely a minority. I did get some hate mail when I posted a conservative article in the college newspaper, but I didn’t really care.

This seems like a lot of words to absolve Republicans of their blame for voting for an unstable idiot. I had to vote for Trump because freshmen at Middlebury College are mean and some psychology professors are kind of biased? Sure-I bet that's why Stan the retired cop in Indiana voted for him. He's totally scared of offending those SJW at Middlebury.

It's quite a contortion to say that the political discourse is fact-free and then just slide right on by President Birther, the Fox News empire, and the climate change and evolution-denying Republican party to land on Middlebury college students as the epicenter of the Death of Facts. If only those Middlebury SJW knew how powerful they were. Do you suppose they also are responsible for conservatives not believing in evolution?

It's time for the party of personal responsibilityTM to take some. If you voted for Donald Trump, that's on you. It's not my fault, it's not Obama's fault, it's not Hillary's fault, and it's not the fault of the members of The Middlebury College SJW Drum Circle and Pronoun Police. We warned you. Indeed, we told you so.

I was a conservative back in my college days and never really felt discriminated against, although I was definitely a minority. I did get some hate mail when I posted a conservative article in the college newspaper, but I didn’t really care.

I received hate mail when I posted a radical, socialist, op-ed in the college newspaper. This was at a liberal, urban, campus, too, but the Greeks were fairly powerful.

That's quite a stretch. Your argument is that colleges skew left (so far so good), therefore they are bastions of exclusionary anti-white policy (that's the unproven off the rails bit that I am having trouble accepting as fact). You could probably support the thesis that conservatives on campus have a harder time though.

fair enough, my "college bias" bit so far was only meant to support the thesis that conservatives on campus are being marginalized (I hesitate to say discriminated against).

I guess I'm not seeing why this information is particularly important though. Most professions tilt either conservative or liberal.

If you're a member of a surgical practice there's a 70% chance of you being Republican. If you work in the fossil fuel industry there's a 90% chance of you being Republican. (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/) In any of the many professions that tilt more conservative than liberal, liberals are more likely to be marginalized. In any of the many professions that tilt more liberal than conservative, conservatives are more likely to be marginalized. That's just a byproduct of how people behave socially - tending to prefer those of their own 'tribe'.

Unless you're arguing that somehow when the left does it it's worse in some way than when the right does it?

I was a conservative back in my college days and never really felt discriminated against, although I was definitely a minority. I did get some hate mail when I posted a conservative article in the college newspaper, but I didn’t really care.

I received hate mail when I posted a radical, socialist, op-ed in the college newspaper. This was at a liberal, urban, campus, too, but the Greeks were fairly powerful.

You don't even have to be radical. A quick google search shows that death threats and hate mail from the right are pretty common when someone is publicly arguing for gun control, or explaining climate change, or supporting a woman's right to choose, etc. Both sides have many idiots who will attempt to force other people to obey their point of view by threatening them.

That's quite a stretch. Your argument is that colleges skew left (so far so good), therefore they are bastions of exclusionary anti-white policy (that's the unproven off the rails bit that I am having trouble accepting as fact). You could probably support the thesis that conservatives on campus have a harder time though.

fair enough, my "college bias" bit so far was only meant to support the thesis that conservatives on campus are being marginalized (I hesitate to say discriminated against).

I guess I'm not seeing why this information is particularly important though. Most professions tilt either conservative or liberal.

If you're a member of a surgical practice there's a 70% chance of you being Republican. If you work in the fossil fuel industry there's a 90% chance of you being Republican. (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/) In any of the many professions that tilt more conservative than liberal, liberals are more likely to be marginalized. In any of the many professions that tilt more liberal than conservative, conservatives are more likely to be marginalized. That's just a byproduct of how people behave socially - tending to prefer those of their own 'tribe'.

Unless you're arguing that somehow when the left does it it's worse in some way than when the right does it?

I was a conservative back in my college days and never really felt discriminated against, although I was definitely a minority. I did get some hate mail when I posted a conservative article in the college newspaper, but I didn’t really care.

I received hate mail when I posted a radical, socialist, op-ed in the college newspaper. This was at a liberal, urban, campus, too, but the Greeks were fairly powerful.

You don't even have to be radical. A quick google search shows that death threats and hate mail from the right are pretty common when someone is publicly arguing for gun control, or explaining climate change, or supporting a woman's right to choose, etc. Both sides have many idiots who will attempt to force other people to obey their point of view by threatening them.

That’s true. I’ve gotten death and rape threats for saying Trump is a terrible president.

The sector you work in is very important, because the non-tech people are much more likely to work with media and organize social movements. Tech people tend to keep our opinions to ourselves as we focus on exploring the physical realities (their respective trade) instead of politics.

This post will explore and investigate if there is any measureable basis to assert if and how progressives movements alienate other groups (with a focus on whites) on campus and in general.

Recap from last post: we agreed on colleges indeed skew left, and that conservatives on campus have a harder time.

What exactly constitutes as having a harder time on campus? And is it only the conservatives likely to have a harder time? I propose that if there is indeed discrimination (real or perceived) on campus, the issue of free speech would stand out, and that is where we should look for possible data. We have established that the colleges do indeed have a systematic left tilt, so one could reasonably expect any discrimination would show up as a "censorship against the right". Yet the reported anecdotal incidents, including Wilfrid Laurier, Evergreen, NYU, Yale, and many more, suggests moderates, and even liberals, are not immune to the institutional radical progressive identity politics.

In the 2017 Cato/YouGov Free Speech survey (N=2300, 769 being college students), Strong liberals (52%), racial minorities (54%), stand out with slim majorities who believe it’s more important for colleges to prohibit offensive and biased speech on campus. Conversely, majorities of regular liberals (66%), conservatives (73%), and white Americans (73%) think colleges need to expose students to a wide variety of perspectives even if they are offensive or prejudiced.

We now have data suggesting a group of minorities, consisting of mostly strong liberals (diff term, but likely radical progressives) and racial minorities promote (with a slim majority) the idea of censoring "offensive and biased speech", while the vast majority of other groups, liberals, moderates, conservatives, and whites alike are strongly against such idea. Note we have not yet explored what represents as "offensive and biased speech", which I will get to later.

But does censorship actually exist? Indeed, most people outside of the strongly liberal group believe that PC is a problem and it silences necessary discussions and stops them from saying what they believe. This suggests the progressives are no longer "in sync" with the rest of the population, and they are now causing resentment even among the liberal group (near 50%). If there were no observed "ideology censorship", one would expect the lines to be either flat or looks like a tent /''''''\. Instead we are seeing the classic scissor chart, implies most people think censorship is high and ideology based.

A sizeable portion of whites voters had voted for the Dems between 1976-2008, with a mean of ~40%. The Progressives are now alienating a very significant portion of these white voters, who are likely liberal and moderate, through PC "censorships" and movements.

To be fair, whites had long felt they had been subjected to "reverse racism" since the 70s as a direct response of affirmative and race based policies. I say felt, because most data still show whites are still dominating various competitions for grants, scholarships, and admissions (although an argument could be made regarding white men vs white women). If anything, Asians, are the biggest "net loser" of affirmative and race based policies in recent decades. But as we've come to realize, when identity politics get involved, people place perception above reality.

In a multi-decade study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.

It is unfortunate that the study was published in 2011 and predates the latest wave of social justice movements (BML, gender issues, refugees, white privilege debates, etc), and we are unable to judge if these events altered whites perception of anti-white bias in any way. However, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.

It is reasonable then, that given the markedly increased percentage of whites who view them as being discriminated against in recent years, if we were to remake the same chart (fig 1) today, the "whites rating anti-white bias" would be higher than before, perhaps between 6-7.

The 2011 study attributes white's anti-white perception to the their belief on the zero-sum nature of racism. While I do not personally subscribe to that view regarding racism and supports the view of Justice Powell, the practical nature of various affirmative and race based policies are indeed zero-sum (in the immediate result) in nature, given limited resources. This study situates specific claims of persecution (exclusion)by White Americans in a broader belief in a new, generalized anti-White bias.

We will now go back and focus on the nature of offensive and biased speech, as defined by various groups. In the same 2017 Cato/YouGov survey, it is found that among Dems (which I relate to progressives, liberals, and some moderates), there is a whopping 28% point gap in "should it be illegal to say offensive things about blacks vs whites", taking first place and last place respectively. I should add, jews and latinos also out scored whites by at least 13%, more than the biggest gap on the Reps side.

On the Reps (likely includes some moderates, conservatives, and ultra conservatives. where whites make up 83% of total Reps on avg) side, there is a measly 3% point gap regarding white vs black (white outscores by 3%), the biggest gap was between military and LGBT group, which was 12%. All races received relatively similar scores.

Another recent survey N=994 shows whites, as a group, places the least amount of importance on their sense of identity (last graph). While 16% whites say it's very important, 70% of blacks and 40% of latinos say it's very important. Obviously there are many historical and cultural reasons for this, but the study nonetheless suggests that whites tend to "operate" under a relatively color-blind mindset, as far as identities are concerned.

It is known human tend to reciprocate kindness and inclusion (can't find the paper, but this is not important), whites are no exception. The five studies taken together show first that white people associate the concept of multiculturalism with exclusion. However, this association can be lessened if white people are explicitly framed as included in multiculturalism. Due to their relatively color-blind mindset, the whites are less likely than people of color to incorporate multiculturalism as part of their self-concept and this contributes to the finding that white people are less likely to support diversity efforts. If one does not consider color as part of one's identity, what logical basis is there for one to support efforts based on colors?

The findings clearly suggest that to get everyone on board for a diversity effort, explicit attention must be given to including white people. The authors make the practical argument that little will change unless white people are on board. Unless white people feel included, they will likely not support “diversity efforts.”

MLK understood that, Obama understood that, the progressives today don't. Not only are they pushing their agendas on campus, at the expense of all other less radical groups, they are also creating social movements and policies that are specifically alienating whites. ALM could have very well been a reactionary slogan, but BLM by its very name makes whites think they are not included. Their intention to explicitly make it illegal to say offensive things to blacks might have been good, but there should not be a massive gap between whites and all other racial groups. I have shown that when whites feel alienated or discriminated against because of identity politics or w/e (and they do), they will be very resistant and not helpful, and as we saw, they went to trump.

Guitar, I have now shown you data that suggest white people as a group do feel excluded and discriminated against, its no longer just anecdotes. What's more, I showed it's no longer just conservatives, but also moderates and liberals being censored against. I have also shown whites are less likely to identify with color, and tend to be on the "censored" end when it comes to free speech on campus and in general. I have also shown whites do become more supportive when they feel included.

The findings clearly suggest that to get everyone on board for a diversity effort, explicit attention must be given to including white people. The authors make the practical argument that little will change unless white people are on board. Unless white people feel included, they will likely not support “diversity efforts.”

How are white people not included in diversity efforts? What does it mean to "not be included"?

You also still have a very skewed and flawed view of American history which I urge you to rectify. Read a little more about MLK besides what the common knowledge is. Towards the end of his life, his views took a shift based on his experiences trying the more conciliatory approach:

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

He also got murdered for all his efforts at working with white people.

Again, I would encourage you to read "Stamped from the Beginning" by Kendi if you want a better understanding of modern black culture and justice movements.

Tell you what: I promise to read your book if you read mine.

The Cato statistics are interesting, but I got a different read on them. Taking individual questions from that survey is misleading because that survey also clearly shows that conservatives are perfectly willing to demolish free speech when there are certain things they don't like

"Republicans (54%) are more likely than Democrats (38%) to say a business executive should be fired if she or he burned the American flag during a weekend political protest.Republicans (65%) are far more likely than Democrats (19%) to say NFL players should be fired for refusing to stand for the national anthem before games."

Is this not censoring and punishing free speech? To post a source and cherry pick the results is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Quote

A sizeable portion of whites voters had voted for the Dems between 1976-2008, with a mean of ~40%. The Progressives are now alienating a very significant portion of these white voters, who are likely liberal and moderate, through PC "censorships" and movements.

I don't buy this, and you show no data to support it. Picking out studies doesn't show that this is a problem of any real significance. And it also doesn't show the flip side - how many Republicans are leaving the GOP because of the perception that the party is becoming increasingly racist and corrupt. My guess is those influences counter each other fairly equally.

Quote

Another recent survey N=994 shows whites, as a group, places the least amount of importance on their sense of identity (last graph). While 16% whites say it's very important, 70% of blacks and 40% of latinos say it's very important. Obviously there are many historical and cultural reasons for this, but the study nonetheless suggests that whites tend to "operate" under a relatively color-blind mindset, as far as identities are concerned.

Wow...you really lean on the word "suggests" a lot to extrapolate your own conclusions from sources. Quoting a source, and then making up a conclusion that you want to believe doesn't make it true.

Another question: Do you believe in institutional racism?

What I am reading from your posts and seeing in a lot of your arguments, reading between the lines, is that a lot of white people are taking offense at the fact that, yes, they might be a bit racist. This actually explains a lot of your outrage at me up thread. Even if they personally harbor no ill will against people who are of a different race, they are living in a society that is structurally racist. This is provoking an emotional response because in our society, being accused of being a racist is a brutal drop in status. This is activating a sense of victim hood that is overriding the empathy that someone might normally have towards other people. That is actually a shame, because in my opinion, almost every person alive, and I include myself in this, is capable of being racist. We are at least complicit in this, because a lot of the benefits we enjoy were built on human suffering based in horribly racist ideology. Instead of just accepting this, and attempting to help rectify the situation, white people are claiming that they are the true victims here, and that their concerns are more important than the human rights of other racial groups.

golden1, you are more reasonable today, so I will talk to you. and yes, I seem nice.

We don't need to trade at all, "Stamped" has been on my list since last year, I am just very behind, because, you know, I spend all my time fighting with random people on the internet.

I will address your concerns regarding anti-black racism once I finish the conversation with Guitar, as they do not directly relate to my identity politics gone bad thesis. one person at a time, I can only take so much. Who knows how long that might take.

For the last time, I am not white. And if you start talking about whites killing others again (focusing excessively on sins of past generations), I will ignore you again. I understand Kendi's central thesis is that there is a racist in everyone, as you suggested, but I am not seeing the merit of such thinking yet.

This is a current trending argument among the conservative intelligentsia. "It's not us; it's the progressives that are making us 'move further right.'*"

It denies people self agency by suggesting that their vote was entirely predicated on some liberal college students or tweeters or Hollywood. For those who make the argument, it provides them a shield and cover for their behavior, from Charlottesville to Pizzagate to separating children from their parents.

It's both a tactic and an excuse, and perhaps an excuse based on guilt. Not everyone can be a purely ideological Stephen Miller.

For the last time, I am not white. And if you start talking about whites killing others again (focusing excessively on sins of past generations), I will ignore you again.

Why? Why are so emotional about this? Why are you ignoring the negative aspects of “white” culture?

Would you be okay about talking about how whites are killing blacks in your generation? Why do you try to remove historical context from your arguments? Are you afraid?

It’s always funny to watch “rationalists” debate because they try to deny core aspects of human nature by trying to appear calm and unruffled, above the fray, but it is always easy to find where their bias is.

I don’t care if you are white or purple. I am white and arguing against the white identity politics you espouse. Just like how many women are anti-feminists because they benefit from the current power structure, many minorities benefit from white supremacy if they decide to side with their masters. Malcolm X said it better.

The sector you work in is very important, because the non-tech people are much more likely to work with media and organize social movements. Tech people tend to keep our opinions to ourselves as we focus on exploring the physical realities (their respective trade) instead of politics.

As was shown in the link that I posted (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/) though, most tech jobs are liberal . . . not conservative. By your own reasoning then, liberals (and by extension, their views) are likely underrepresented in politics?

Recap from last post: we agreed on colleges indeed skew left, and that conservatives on campus have a harder time.

What exactly constitutes as having a harder time on campus? And is it only the conservatives likely to have a harder time? I propose that if there is indeed discrimination (real or perceived) on campus, the issue of free speech would stand out, and that is where we should look for possible data. We have established that the colleges do indeed have a systematic left tilt, so one could reasonably expect any discrimination would show up as a "censorship against the right". Yet the reported anecdotal incidents, including Wilfrid Laurier, Evergreen, NYU, Yale, and many more, suggests moderates, and even liberals, are not immune to the institutional radical progressive identity politics.

Hang on for a second. The plural of anecdote is not 'data'. I can find more than five instances of conservatives and conservative groups explicitly excluding black people. Yet, I would be a fool to claim that all conservatives are racist. The same logic needs to apply to your argument against liberals.

I agreed that conservatives probably have a 'harder time' on university campuses because there are likely to be more liberals on a campus. By the same token, I'd argue that liberals probably have a harder time working as surgeons, or in the oil industry . . . since there are likely to be more liberals in these fields. You have yet to have shown anything beyond a few anecdotes regarding your 'cencorship against the right' argument. I am still waiting for data that proves the initial conditions you're basing your theory on.

In the 2017 Cato/YouGov Free Speech survey (N=2300, 769 being college students), Strong liberals (52%), racial minorities (54%), stand out with slim majorities who believe it’s more important for colleges to prohibit offensive and biased speech on campus. Conversely, majorities of regular liberals (66%), conservatives (73%), and white Americans (73%) think colleges need to expose students to a wide variety of perspectives even if they are offensive or prejudiced.

We now have data suggesting a group of minorities, consisting of mostly strong liberals (diff term, but likely radical progressives) and racial minorities promote (with a slim majority) the idea of censoring "offensive and biased speech", while the vast majority of other groups, liberals, moderates, conservatives, and whites alike are strongly against such idea. Note we have not yet explored what represents as "offensive and biased speech", which I will get to later.

With respect, a study by a think tank bought and paid for by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers is obviously going to have some bias issues in this discussion. There are easy to see flaws designed into the study, likely because the conclusion was written before the data was actually collected. To take a look at one item at random:

Under the heading "Liberals more likely to say speech is offensive" we have the following questions:- A person who says homosexuality is a sin- A person who says that women should not be in combat roles in the military- A person who says that all illegal immigrants should be deported- A person who says that Islam is taking over Europe

Yet, I'm willing to bet that by changing the 'speech is offensive' questions to:- A person who says that America's foreign policy hurts - A person who says that Christianity is a danger to rational thought- A person who provides information to perform safe home abortions- A person who discusses the benefits of communism over capitalism

But does censorship actually exist? Indeed, most people outside of the strongly liberal group believe that PC is a problem and it silences necessary discussions and stops them from saying what they believe. This suggests the progressives are no longer "in sync" with the rest of the population, and they are now causing resentment even among the liberal group (near 50%). If there were no observed "ideology censorship", one would expect the lines to be either flat or looks like a tent /''''''\. Instead we are seeing the classic scissor chart, implies most people think censorship is high and ideology based.

Oh look. The Cato instutute again . . . and . . . shockingly . . . they've produced another study that shows exactly what the Koch brothers want it to show.

A sizeable portion of whites voters had voted for the Dems between 1976-2008, with a mean of ~40%. The Progressives are now alienating a very significant portion of these white voters, who are likely liberal and moderate, through PC "censorships" and movements.

Hang on. You've already said multiple times that we can't talk about things that happened long ago in the past with regards to the unequal treatment that white people have given people of colour, women, and gay folks. But now you're telling me to look at voting records from 42 years ago? Are we going to discuss the past, or are we only allowed to discuss it when it supports your conclusions?

To be fair, whites had long felt they had been subjected to "reverse racism" since the 70s as a direct response of affirmative and race based policies. I say felt, because most data still show whites are still dominating various competitions for grants, scholarships, and admissions (although an argument could be made regarding white men vs white women). If anything, Asians, are the biggest "net loser" of affirmative and race based policies in recent decades. But as we've come to realize, when identity politics get involved, people place perception above reality.

In a multi-decade study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.

It is unfortunate that the study was published in 2011 and predates the latest wave of social justice movements (BML, gender issues, refugees, white privilege debates, etc), and we are unable to judge if these events altered whites perception of anti-white bias in any way. However, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.

It is reasonable then, that given the markedly increased percentage of whites who view them as being discriminated against in recent years, if we were to remake the same chart (fig 1) today, the "whites rating anti-white bias" would be higher than before, perhaps between 6-7.

The 2011 study attributes white's anti-white perception to the their belief on the zero-sum nature of racism. While I do not personally subscribe to that view regarding racism and supports the view of Justice Powell, the practical nature of various affirmative and race based policies are indeed zero-sum (in the immediate result) in nature, given limited resources. This study situates specific claims of persecution (exclusion)by White Americans in a broader belief in a new, generalized anti-White bias.

Agreed, white people have long felt that they were subjected to "reverse racism" that doesn't exist. Also agreed, that many people place perception above reality. I suspect that might actually be why we're having this discussion.

It's not surprising that the group of people who once were able to rely on racism as a tactic to get ahead in life feel that equality is negatively impacting them. It is. To a certain degree, yes, there is a zero-sum aspect to many situations. White people can no longer rely on racism as their edge to win, now they have to work harder. Almost as hard as a black guy in their situation would. That is going to be tough for a group of people accustomed to the benefits of privilege. It's not indicative of a problem though, but is a reason why white people accustomed to privilege afforded by racist actions and policy would feel hard done by. I don't know how to solve their problem.

We will now go back and focus on the nature of offensive and biased speech, as defined by various groups. In the same 2017 Cato/YouGov survey, it is found that among Dems (which I relate to progressives, liberals, and some moderates), there is a whopping 28% point gap in "should it be illegal to say offensive things about blacks vs whites", taking first place and last place respectively. I should add, jews and latinos also out scored whites by at least 13%, more than the biggest gap on the Reps side.

On the Reps (likely includes some moderates, conservatives, and ultra conservatives. where whites make up 83% of total Reps on avg) side, there is a measly 3% point gap regarding white vs black (white outscores by 3%), the biggest gap was between military and LGBT group, which was 12%. All races received relatively similar scores.

So, I live in a country where hate speech actually is banned. And you know what? It's not oppressive. It's hard for me to get too worked up about this issue. Especially when you're just pointing out that some people don't like hate speech . . . but literally nobody in the US is currently prevented from saying what he or she wants to.

Another recent survey N=994 shows whites, as a group, places the least amount of importance on their sense of identity (last graph). While 16% whites say it's very important, 70% of blacks and 40% of latinos say it's very important. Obviously there are many historical and cultural reasons for this, but the study nonetheless suggests that whites tend to "operate" under a relatively color-blind mindset, as far as identities are concerned. [/quote]

From the same study:

This would seem to argue that conservative whites have extremely explicit colour biases as far as black identity is concerned. If you're black, you're a lazy taker from society . . . not a contributor.

It is known human tend to reciprocate kindness and inclusion (can't find the paper, but this is not important), whites are no exception. The five studies taken together show first that white people associate the concept of multiculturalism with exclusion. However, this association can be lessened if white people are explicitly framed as included in multiculturalism. Due to their relatively color-blind mindset, the whites are less likely than people of color to incorporate multiculturalism as part of their self-concept and this contributes to the finding that white people are less likely to support diversity efforts. If one does not consider color as part of one's identity, what logical basis is there for one to support efforts based on colors?

The findings clearly suggest that to get everyone on board for a diversity effort, explicit attention must be given to including white people. The authors make the practical argument that little will change unless white people are on board. Unless white people feel included, they will likely not support “diversity efforts.”

People tend to be very aligned with their paycheck. As has already been mentioned, white people need to work harder for jobs and to make money if they can't rely on racism to let them win over a large portion of the population. A certain segment of this population will never support multiculturalism, because it means that they have to work as hard as an immigrant . . . and years of privileged have given them different expectations.

I don't know how to solve the lazy white guy problem. I don't believe that rolling back diversity and equality is a valid plan though.

MLK understood that, Obama understood that, the progressives today don't. Not only are they pushing their agendas on campus, at the expense of all other less radical groups, they are also creating social movements and policies that are specifically alienating whites. ALM could have very well been a reactionary slogan, but BLM by its very name makes whites think they are not included. Their intention to explicitly make it illegal to say offensive things to blacks might have been good, but there should not be a massive gap between whites and all other racial groups. I have shown that when whites feel alienated or discriminated against because of identity politics or w/e (and they do), they will be very resistant and not helpful, and as we saw, they went to trump.

BLM is a movement related to black people being killed by police officers. Whites are certainly able to march in solidarity and join events . . . but fundamentally, it is not an issue that impacts white people in the same way as black people. It doesn't make any kind of sense that the name should be changed to 'ALM' so that white people feel more included in the discussion of black people being shot by police . . . just as it wouldn't have made any sense to call the 'Black Panthers' the 'Multiracial Inclusive of Whites Panthers' in the 60s.

Who has made it illegal to say anything to anyone? I'm not sure what you're talking about there, as to my knowledge this hasn't happened in the US. Certainly you've provided no examples of it.

Guitar, I have now shown you data that suggest white people as a group do feel excluded and discriminated against, its no longer just anecdotes. What's more, I showed it's no longer just conservatives, but also moderates and liberals being censored against. I have also shown whites are less likely to identify with color, and tend to be on the "censored" end when it comes to free speech on campus and in general. I have also shown whites do become more supportive when they feel included.

You have shown me data that white people unjustly feel discriminated against. You haven't shown anything that demonstrates the existence of censorship and a silencing of free speech (just some questionable studies indicating that some people think there should be more rules regarding censorship). You have not shown that white people are systematically censored anywhere.

I'm sorry, but there needs to be an awful lot of work done before we can confidently agree on the points underpinning your hypothesis.

Exactly. This is the whole reason that it's so silly to be saying white people feel disenfranchised because Black Lives Matter is about black people. It's not exclusionary, it's pointing out an existing problem that happens to not impact white people. If white people want to be closer to the issue they need to start being killed on a regular basis without cause by police officers . . . or y'know . . . offer support to the black people who are. Whining that the name is not inclusive enough to white people, and therefore you're not going to try to help black folks who are being murdered by the police is pretty ridiculous.

The term 'snowflake' to describe people with an unwarranted sense of entitlement is typically used by those on the right to describe this sort, isn't it?

I am not sure how much weight we can place on the verdantlabs chart, as the data source is merely campaign contribution from the FEC, and we have no way of telling if it is a general representation of America today. You are more than welcome to show me it does though. Also note it's broken down based on party lines, that's an over simplification, a sizeable moderates overlap exist, how is that accounted for?

What do you mean by its not data but a plural of anecdote? What is data then in soc-sci/arts if not plural of anecdote? Also I think you are confusing liberal vs radical progressives. I am not against liberals.You say I "have yet to have shown anything beyond a few anecdotes regarding my 'cencorship against the right' argument." and you are still waiting for data that proves the initial conditions. Is it because you dismissed the Cato survey, because it's quite clear based on what I presented, "most people outside of the strongly liberal group believe that PC is a problem and it silences necessary discussions and stops them from saying what they believe.

Here is the thing, just because it's founded/owned by Kochs, it doesn't automatically disqualify its result. This is the same fallacy both ends use to their own detriment these days. "its on fox, must be garbage (most times yes)" "its on nbc, fake news! (see)". I reject your tribal view of source data.

Cato is by no means ultra-conservative, despite what Kochs are themselves. If anything, Cato is moderate and right center, or as they call it, Libertarian. Earlier up-thread, someone equated the views I got from Washington post, Guardian, Atlantic, and the works of Barbara Epstein to fox news, breitbart, dailykos, simply because they did not like views presented. To be frank, I find this brash dismissal insulting, not to me personally, but to all that worked on these articles, especially to Epstein, who for decades had been a beacon of liberalism. For what its worth, here is what someone wrote about Cato and Kochs.

Here is what the newyorker said about Cato back when the Kochs and Cato were suing each other in 2012. The arch-conservative billionaire Koch Brothers have sued the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington—often mistakenly seen as merely a tentacle, if not mouthpiece, for the Kochtopus—for control of Cato. You can also go on to media fact check to see they rated it highly factual.

Now, if we are finished disputing the validity of Cato survey simply because its owned by Kochs, we can take a closer look at the robustness of the data, because otherwise there is no point.

Earlier up-thread, someone equated the views I got from Washington post, Guardian, Atlantic, and the works of Barbara Epstein to fox news, breitbart, dailykos, simply because they did not like views presented. To be frank, I find this brash dismissal insulting, not to me personally, but to all that worked on these articles, especially to Epstein, who for decades had been a beacon of liberalism.

Strike ONE!

This is incorrect. Pointing out that a few hand-picked articles do not represent the entirety of the college experience in no way equates the WaPo to dailyKos. You made that comparison yourself.

I'm glad you recognize that news sources have different reputations but it's insulting that you aren't good at reading comprehension and then try to blame it on the messenger.

I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.

All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter. Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.

I am not sure how much weight we can place on the verdantlabs chart, as the data source is merely campaign contribution from the FEC, and we have no way of telling if it is a general representation of America today. You are more than welcome to show me it does though. Also note it's broken down based on party lines, that's an over simplification, a sizeable moderates overlap exist, how is that accounted for?

Fair enough. If you want to argue that the chart is wrong, you're free to do so. It's not really important to my underlying point . . . which is that some industries tilt right, and some left. That has always been the case, so I'm not entirely sure why you're so hung up on universities tilting left.

What do you mean by its not data but a plural of anecdote? What is data then in soc-sci/arts if not plural of anecdote? Also I think you are confusing liberal vs radical progressives. I am not against liberals.

I mean that providing a few publicized news stories (which received press because of how unusual they are) is not indicative of a trend. We're looking for data proving that white people are systematically silenced on University campuses. So far, nothing like that has been shown . . . just a few anecdotes of unusual occurrences.

You have provided data that there are more liberal people in the arts and social sciences. You have provided none for the wild conclusions you've posited though (white people are regularly silenced on university campuses, white people are oppressed by minorities because of equal rights) - which is what I was hoping to find.

You say I "have yet to have shown anything beyond a few anecdotes regarding my 'cencorship against the right' argument." and you are still waiting for data that proves the initial conditions. Is it because you dismissed the Cato survey, because it's quite clear based on what I presented, "most people outside of the strongly liberal group believe that PC is a problem and it silences necessary discussions and stops them from saying what they believe.

Here is the thing, just because it's founded/owned by Kochs, it doesn't automatically disqualify its result. This is the same fallacy both ends use to their own detriment these days. "its on fox, must be garbage (most times yes)" "its on nbc, fake news! (see)". I reject your tribal view of source data.

I didn't ignore the Cato study you brought forth. I pointed out how the study you were referencing was very obviously flawed and biased in it's methodology. Yes, I also pointed out that it's deeply politically connected to the Koch brothers . . . because I think that's important to mention as well. Particularly as most of your "data" was coming from this single source. I also twice showed studies not linked to the Koch brothers that refuted what the Koch brothers are claiming.

Cato is by no means ultra-conservative, despite what Kochs are themselves. If anything, Cato is moderate and right center, or as they call it, Libertarian. Earlier up-thread, someone equated the views I got from Washington post, Guardian, Atlantic, and the works of Barbara Epstein to fox news, breitbart, dailykos, simply because they did not like views presented. To be frank, I find this brash dismissal insulting, not to me personally, but to all that worked on these articles, especially to Epstein, who for decades had been a beacon of liberalism. For what its worth, here is what someone wrote about Cato and Kochs.

Here is what the newyorker said about Cato back when the Kochs and Cato were suing each other in 2012. The arch-conservative billionaire Koch Brothers have sued the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington—often mistakenly seen as merely a tentacle, if not mouthpiece, for the Kochtopus—for control of Cato.

Now, if we are finished disputing the validity of Cato survey simply because its owned by Kochs, we can take a closer look at the robustness of the data, because otherwise there is no point.

I'm not dismissing evidence from this source out of hand. You are linking studies that clearly show manipulation by the researchers to get desired results. Regardless of the validity of the Cato institute data that you source, there's nothing in it that demonstrates evidence of your claim that white people are being silenced on university campuses. There's just a lot of insinuation about the intolerance of people with the liberal mindset.

I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.

All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter. Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.

Because white lives have always mattered, but black lives have not. Getting pissy over leaving out a simple word and claiming it somehow shows discrimination against white folks is about a far of a ridiculous reach as you can get. Black people are still dying at the hands of white folks as a result of their skin color yet somehow a word left out of a phrase is what passes for discrimination against whites?!? You gotta be kidding me!

I'm not dismissing evidence from this source out of hand. You are linking studies that clearly show manipulation by the researchers to get desired results. Regardless of the validity of the Cato institute data that you source, there's nothing in it that demonstrates evidence of your claim that white people are being silenced on university campuses. There's just a lot of insinuation about the intolerance of people with the liberal mindset.

Research also calls into question anecdotal accounts of instructors penalizing students with conservative viewpoints. Markus Kemmelmeier of the University of Nevada, Reno, along with Cherry Danielson and Jay Basten, conducted longitudinal research on four thousand undergraduate students during their four-year college experiences and found that students with conservative views make the same grades in most classes as their more liberal peers. The only exception was in business classes, where conservative students did slightly better.

I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.

All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter. Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.

Because white lives have always mattered, but black lives have not. Getting pissy over leaving out a simple word and claiming it somehow shows discrimination against white folks is about a far of a ridiculous reach as you can get. Black people are still dying at the hands of white folks as a result of their skin color yet somehow a word left out of a phrase is what passes for discrimination against whites?!? You gotta be kidding me!

I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.

All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter. Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.

Because white lives have always mattered, but black lives have not. Getting pissy over leaving out a simple word and claiming it somehow shows discrimination against white folks is about a far of a ridiculous reach as you can get. Black people are still dying at the hands of white folks as a result of their skin color yet somehow a word left out of a phrase is what passes for discrimination against whites?!? You gotta be kidding me!

I am not getting pissy, I am simply pointing out that it sounds very different to whites and the conclusions from studies (not going to link again, its up-thread) that whites need to be explicitly included or they would feel excluded against.

Now, if you want to dispute the conclusions of the studies or that whites don't see much difference in the BLM wording. you are more than welcome to show me some studies that demonstrate such.

I will make a crappy analogue and you can decide if it has merit.

Say you want to get to a destination (political goal) and you have a map that tells you the easiest way to get there (studies dating back to early 2000s that show whites need to explicitly included for them to get onboard). Somehow you choose to not follow the map and go the opposite way of what the map says (not explicitly included white), even though plenty of bystanders have cautioned you along the way (both liberal and moderates).

President Trump’s moves kept identity issues at the forefront, too, and gave Democrats an opportunity both to defend groups they view as disadvantaged and to attack the policies of a president they hate.

Now, the question remains: do the Democrats care? Do they double down or try to appeal more to the middle?

I think "Black Lives Matter" has an implied "too" at the end. "All lives matter too" is nonsensical.

All lives matter too is indeed nonsensical. So really, the choices would be Black Lives Matter Too, and All Lives Matter. Adding the "too" at the end of BLM would have made it sound much more inclusive. "subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups" can make a huge difference in how whites react. The choice to not have a too tagged in the back represents a missed opportunity to me.

Because white lives have always mattered, but black lives have not. Getting pissy over leaving out a simple word and claiming it somehow shows discrimination against white folks is about a far of a ridiculous reach as you can get. Black people are still dying at the hands of white folks as a result of their skin color yet somehow a word left out of a phrase is what passes for discrimination against whites?!? You gotta be kidding me!

I am not getting pissy, I am simply pointing out that it sounds very different to whites and the conclusions from studies (not going to link again, its up-thread) that whites need to be explicitly included or they would feel excluded against.

Now, if you want to dispute the conclusions of the studies or that whites don't see much difference in the wording anyway. you are more than welcome to show me some studies that demonstrate such.

I will make a crappy analogue and you can decide if it has merit.

Say you want to get to a destination (political goal) and you have a map that tells you the easiest way to get there (studies dating back to early 2000s that show whites need to explicitly included for them to get onboard). Somehow you choose to not follow the map and go the opposite way of what the map says (not explicitly included white), even though plenty of bystanders have cautioned you along the way (both liberal and moderates).

You ended up not reaching the destination, and that's surprising?

ok.

Um yeah I saw the survey. But in what universe does that survey conclude whites feel discriminated against? Of course whites are going to align more with "All Lives Matter" over "Black Lives Matter." Because they are not black. Seems pretty damn obvious don't you think? I wouldn't align myself with gay pride since I am not gay. And I sure as shit don't feel excluded from the gay community because of gay pride. Pride for everyone? Hell yeah. But I understand that as a straight white male I've never had to endure discrimination based on my skin color or sexual preference. So why would I or anyone else in the same situation feel the need to be included in something that has nothing to do with them? Why would anyone feel discriminated against by being excluded from a group that suffers actual discrimination on a daily basis?

You are drawing biased conclusions from reports that aren't actually there. White folks feel excluded from groups whereas black people and gay people are excluded from actual civil rights and equality and even the right to just exist. It's like night and day in terms of discrimination. To be honest it just sound like white folks whining because they don't like the ideal of equality for all.

Who knows though, perhaps a 40 something year old guy with no kids will show up on teen mom tomorrow on the basis of discrimination.

But in what universe does that survey conclude whites feel discriminated against? .

I would argue this one. It's also up-thread.In a multi-decade study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.

"our data are the first to demonstrate that not only do Whites think more progress has been made toward equality than do Blacks, but Whites also now believe that this progress is linked to a new inequality—at their expense."

You can deny whites have any basis to feel this way all you want. but like it or not, that's their perception, and many whites do feel discriminated against. My conclusions are almost copy and pasted from the studies (authors) themselves, how can you say I am "drawing biased conclusions from reports that aren't actually there". These are absurd accusations that suggest either you didn't read the studies, how you missed what the authors said. These are the conclusions from the authors. Examples above, and below.

"The five studies taken together show first that white people associate the concept of multiculturalism with exclusion. However, this association can be lessened if white people are explicitly framed as included in multiculturalism. The whites are less likely than people of color to incorporate multiculturalism as part of their self-concept and this contributes to the finding that white people are less likely to support diversity efforts."

You gave a good personal anecdote, like I said, might you provide some data that refute these conclusions from the studies (authors)?

Namely, 1. whites feel discriminated against, and 2. whites are less likely to support diversity efforts but the association between multiculturalism with exclusion can be lessened if white people are explicated framed as included in multiculturalism

Guitar, I reject your assertion that the cato data qualifies as "bad data", but I am willing to have it examined. First , I need to study the Murphy data and see if there are any similarities and oddities.

"Again, I’m a bit confused. The people who are the most censorious of racist speech are those who are slightly liberal, yet those are people who, compared to other liberals, are also most censorious of militarist speech (those at about 2.5 on the scale). "

"One note: deplatforming of college speakers, as judging by the FIRE “disinvitation database”, is being done far more these days by the Left than the Right. That doesn’t comport with Murphy’s finding that the left is the least censorious wing of politics. But this could reflect Murphy’s claim that the most censorious leftists are “a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists, who happen to have gained media attention.” It may be those activists who are responsible for the deplatforming."

If anything, Murphy's idea that a "puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists", who happen to have gained media attention, wish to suppress free speech, matches with Cato's finding that "Strong liberals (52%), racial minorities (54%), stand out with slim majorities who believe it’s more important for colleges to prohibit offensive and biased speech on campus". Economist also reports a 20% minority who thinks it is acceptable to use violence to prevent a “very controversial speaker” from speaking. All three studies identify a small group that wish to suppress free speech.

This is something we need to keep in mind going forward.

What Murphy found is quite unusual and warrants a deep dive into the data to explain the anomalies Kurt mentioned. If you know how Murphy plotted it, it would be really helpful. Thanks.

Sidenote, the economist has a piece on GSS findings, and sheds further light on our current discussion (since you do not like cato):

"But young Americans who have attended college are in fact more accommodating of controversial speakers, such as avowed racists, than those who have not"

"Views on these issues seem not to have changed much in recent years. That suggests that the campus stunts, disturbing as they may be, afflict only a fraction of students"

"A survey of 3,000 college students by Gallup for the Knight Foundation and the Newseum Institute finds that 78% favour campuses where offensive and biased speech is permitted. A separate study found that even at Yale, a hotbed of student protest, 72% oppose codes that circumscribe speech, compared with 16% in favour. Truly illiberal tendencies are limited to about 20% of college students."

"Truly illiberal tendencies are limited to about 20% of college students. This is the fraction that thinks it is acceptable to use violence to prevent a “very controversial speaker” from speaking,"

"Yet although they may be outnumbered, this vocal minority can have a chilling effect on what everyone else thinks they can say. At Yale, 42% of students (and 71% of conservatives) say they feel uncomfortable giving their opinions on politics, race, religion and gender. Self-censorship becomes more common as students progress through university: 61% of freshmen feel comfortable gabbing about their views, but the same is true of just 56% of sophomores, 49% of juniors and 30% of seniors."

In short, some of Murphy's findings (The people who are the most censorious of racist speech are those who are slightly liberal) are confusing to Kurt and not in accordance with what the Economist and Cato found, I would like to take a look further, might need your help to show me how.

But in what universe does that survey conclude whites feel discriminated against? .

I would argue this one. It's also up-thread.In a multi-decade study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.

"our data are the first to demonstrate that not only do Whites think more progress has been made toward equality than do Blacks, but Whites also now believe that this progress is linked to a new inequality—at their expense."

You can deny whites have any basis to feel this way all you want. but like it or not, that's their perception, and many whites do feel discriminated against. My conclusions are almost copy and pasted from the studies (authors) themselves, how can you say I am "drawing biased conclusions from reports that aren't actually there". These are absurd accusations that suggest either you didn't read the studies, how you missed what the authors said. These are the conclusions from the authors. Examples above, and below.

"The five studies taken together show first that white people associate the concept of multiculturalism with exclusion. However, this association can be lessened if white people are explicitly framed as included in multiculturalism. The whites are less likely than people of color to incorporate multiculturalism as part of their self-concept and this contributes to the finding that white people are less likely to support diversity efforts."

You gave a good personal anecdote, like I said, might you provide some data that refute these conclusions from the studies (authors)?

Namely, 1. whites feel discriminated against, and 2. whites are less likely to support diversity efforts but the association between multiculturalism with exclusion can be lessened if white people are explicated framed as included in multiculturalism

Essentially whites think they are the new blacks. And the basis for this thought is due to being left out of groups that highlight actual racism against blacks and affirmative action, that's necessary because of actual statistics proving institutional racism against blacks still exist. The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal. I mean were aren't talking about slavery here. Or being shot by cops because of your skin color. There aren't the reverse of the KKK or black supremacist groups mowing whites down in their cars then being praised by the President. Nope none of that. Apparently it's the exclusion from groups meant to highlight actual real life ongoing inequality and the resistance of equality that somehow translates to "white oppression."

BTW, white females aren't flocking to the right and neither are college educated white males. In fact Dems have gained ground in both those demographics. So it's disingenuous to claim white voters are being driven to the right these days. You are discussing only a subset of people within white voters.

1. Trump himself and his parents for creating/being one of the worst Americans of our time

2. The people who voted for Trump

3. The people who didn't bother to vote

4. People who voted third party in a swing state-sorry, but you get some blame. We vote in the system we have, not the one we wish we had. First past the post means you know full well that you aren't getting President Jill Stein. You vote for the best of the major party candidates and agitate on your free time to get Green or Libertarian candidates elected in local elections to actually build the party if it was so important to you. On the plus side, you are still a better voter than groups 1-3 above. So you are in the top 66 million people in the US.

5. People who voted third party in a red or blue state-you mostly get a pass. Also, you get demerits if you don't vote in midterms.

6. People who voted for Hillary but spent the entire election season spreading information about how she is the devil with cankles. And probably killed people. And rigged the primaries.

This is my list, and I'm sticking to it. I accept no blame for Trump.

I'd throw the mainstream media into this pile somewhere, too, for making it all about the 24 hour Trump circus, including echoing every single thing he said about Hillary over and over, and basically never focusing on any actual campaign issues/platform, anything.

Absolutely, the media had a major role in propping up Trump. The breathlessly reported every stupid tweet etc.

The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal.

I mean were aren't talking about slavery here. Or being shot by cops because of your skin color. There aren't the reverse of the KKK or black supremacist groups mowing whites down in their cars then being praised by the President. Nope none of that. Apparently it's the exclusion from groups meant to highlight actual real life ongoing inequality and the resistance of equality that somehow translates to "white oppression."

Again, I agree. But based on what just what the studies reported (conclusions from authors). I believe we should focus on bringing the whites onboard (by explicitly making it inviting to whites) instead of the alternative which might alienates them further.

Quote

BTW, white females aren't flocking to the right and neither are college educated white males. In fact Dems have gained ground in both those demographics. So it's disingenuous to claim white voters are being driven to the right these days. You are discussing only a subset of people within white voters.

Yes and no, because of EC, national trends are not always reflected when it comes down to electing the pres. Clinton won the popular vote but still lost the election. Many of the "rust-belt" swing states turned in 2016 because of lost white votes. One could (in theory) won the popular votes by a landslide and still get slaughtered as far as EC is concerned.

The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal.

data to support this?

Umm you posted the "data" showing how groups meant to highlight continued inequality toward minorities somehow translates to "white oppression." Minorities don't want special treatment. They just don't want to be killed because of their skin color, you know like white people. If these white folks are complaining of being oppressed then there should be universal data to support this. Outside of a couple outliers you posted there is still absolutely no data to suggest this is happening universally.

Also how does racism play into these stats? For example if you asked staunch racist if they believe BLM is somehow oppressive towards whites, what do you think their answer would be? A resounding "YES!!?" Does that validate or invalidate the stats?

a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.

If you do believe these are outliers, you can show me studies that show otherwise, I have 3 here. Statistically to be considered outlier counter evidence needs to be on the order of 1/10 at least (ie 30), I will be lenient, just show me 6 with the counter-conclusion to that

1. whites feel discriminated against, and 2. whites are less likely to support diversity efforts but the association between multiculturalism with exclusion can be lessened if white people are explicated framed as included in multiculturalism

Or studies that support3. Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal.

I am fine if you don't like the data I showed, bring your own like Guitar did, we can still have a conversation based on those. From all of your posts here so far you have given 0/6. Good luck.

Are you rejecting the conclusions from the studies (authors) without providing studies of the contrary?

No I stated there should be data proving there is indeed white oppression. You know actual data to support the conclusions. It's not about my feelings towards the data, it's about whether the data is based on actual provable facts/events. Pretty sure I am not the first to ask this. You are more concerned about feelings than if those feeling are based on reality. You might as well start citing anti-AGW stats in an effort to claim somehow the anti-AGW crowd has validity.

Quote

I am fine if you don't like the data I showed, bring your own like Guitar did, we can still have a conversation based on those. From all of your posts here so far you have given 0/6. Good luck.

Quite frankly I don't give a shit about the data. Until you can provide actual proof of continuing institutional white oppression, the data just shows people making decisions based on feelings. Again I refer back to the anti-AGW crowd. The scientific data/facts doesn't support their agenda either.

Not sure where you got 0/6 from because I am not the one making claims. I did ask 3 questions of which you answered none. Does that make you 0/3? Let's be a little more mature about this. I have witnessed real life staunch racist claiming BLM is oppressive towards white. My questions weren't something I grabbed out of thin air. So in relation only to the data you seem obsessed with cramming down everyone's throats without any evidence to validate the data (again so you aren't confused, meaning there indeed is widespread systematic white oppression happening), I still wouldn't take it at face value. You might be surprised to find out our country is still chock full of racist. Especially on the right (just look who they elected and many still support). Bias tends to skew results.

But hey this has been fun. Let me know when you can track down all that rampant "white racism." Then we'll have something to discuss.

I am not sure how you can misunderstand the conclusions of the studies (and mine).

No one said there is actual white oppression, I definitely did not, I don't know how you got that. The studies merely show

1. whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against, not an outlier, it's universal. 2. For whites to help with diversity, they need to be explicitly included and not perceive to be excluded.

I agree with you that whites are not oppressed like blacks once were, I agree with this 100%. Again, whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against. So I do not need to show anything.

But you then made the assertion that "The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal."

I do not agree with this, do you have anything to support this?

I also do not see how racism is relevant in how whites perceive they are being discriminated against. Are you saying whites that feel they are discriminated against are racists? What about other races that feel discriminated against? Or the people that made the studies?

I am not sure how you can misunderstand the conclusions of the studies (and mine).

No one said there is actual white oppression, I definitely did not, I don't know how you got that. The studies merely show

1. whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against, not an outlier, it's universal. 2. For whites to help with diversity, they need to be explicitly included and not perceive to be excluded.

I agree with you that whites are not oppressed like blacks once were, I agree with this 100%. Again, whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against. So I do not need to show anything.

I didn't misunderstand the data's conclusions. I showed there most certainly is going to be some bias in that data. You'll find bias in asking conservatives vs liberals about global warming. So what? Let's examine facts, not data about people's feelings. If those feelings (aka "data") is a result of something that isn't actually occurring, then it certainly doesn't support the ideal that progressives are the cause of this. People need to take ownership of their own perceptions and biases. Quit blaming others, especially entire political parties.

"But you then made the assertion that "The whole think stinks to high hell and just sounds like an excuse to further oppress the "historically disenfranchised." Some white folks simply cannot fathom not being the "top dawg" anymore and refuse to settle for a tie, as in everyone being treated equal."

I do not agree with this, do you have anything to support this?

Absolutely. I just provided real life experiences of staunch racist claiming BLM is oppressive to whites. Racist tend to create reasons excuses to justify their behavior.

Let's examine facts, not data about people's feelings. If those feelings (aka "data") is a result of something that isn't actually occurring, then it certainly doesn't support the ideal that progressives are the cause of this. People need to take ownership of their own perceptions and biases. Quit blaming others, especially entire political parties.

Again, I agree 100% that we should focus on facts and not feelings. But the facts are whites feel discriminated, and at this point it's pointless to argue if those are justified (compared to what blacks went through), because we are already at the stage of right vs left identity politics.

We need whites' help to make meaningful changes and whites are not as likely to help unless they are explicitly invited. What are the alternatives? Keep doing the same stuffs and hopefully things magically change in 2020? The white votes lost in the rust-belt states is no joke, and Trump somehow still has support outside of his core base (41%). Like I mentioned, Dems can get 10M extra votes along the coasts, but those mean nothing if they cant win back white votes in the rust-belt states.

Edit: Actually there is an alternative. The Dems could find someone that minorities strongly identify with, likely a minority him/her self, to regain the black votes, and hopefully get a repeat of 2008 and 2012. Given today's political climate, that would almost certainly mean the Dem's have to be even more left leaning than before. I am not hopeful with this.

Let's examine facts, not data about people's feelings. If those feelings (aka "data") is a result of something that isn't actually occurring, then it certainly doesn't support the ideal that progressives are the cause of this. People need to take ownership of their own perceptions and biases. Quit blaming others, especially entire political parties.

Again, I agree 100% that we should focus on facts and not feelings. But the facts are whites feel discriminated, and at this point it's pointless to argue if those are justified (compared to what blacks went through), because we are already at the stage of right vs left identity politics.

We need whites' help to make meaningful changes and whites are not as likely to help unless they are explicitly invited. What are the alternatives? Keep doing the same stuffs and hopefully things magically change in 2020? The white votes lost in the rust-belt states is no joke, and Trump somehow still has support outside of his core base (41%). Like I mentioned, Dems can get 10M extra votes along the coasts, but those mean nothing if they cant win back white votes in the rust-belt states.

Edit: Actually there is an alternative. The Dems could find someone that minorities strongly identify with, likely a minority him/her self, to regain the black votes, and hopefully get a repeat of 2008 and 2012. Given today's political climate, that would almost certainly mean the Dem's have to be even more left leaning than before. I am not hopeful with this.

I don't think it is pointless. That's the "rub." In order to appeal to these folks, one would have to blindly accept what actually isn't happening and offer solutions, again to a problem that doesn't actually exist. And then you risk further alienating people who actually are being discriminated against. Appealing to many of these rust belt voters is going to mean appealing to white supremacist and those types of people as well. Again, it's the victim ideology. And it doesn't just stop at race.

And then you have the conservatives who quite frankly feed into this bullshit. They blame Democrats for them losing jobs, losing healthcare, wage disparity, and convincing them they are being discriminated against. Despite immigration actually helping communities, many gaining healthcare under the ACA, Dems offering training programs (which is actually part of what's spurring the increase in manufacturing jobs). See, facts don't really matter to these people.

So I understand it might give you a warm fuzzy to think we can and should appeal to these people. And perhaps the Dems should point blank lie to them (hey it worked for Trump). But as has been stated Trump won by the slightest of margins so I don't think a full on smear campaign is necessary to win these votes. At the end of 4 years, if things aren't better and they still insist on voting R, then they are likely a lost cause.

1. whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against, not an outlier, it's universal. 2. For whites to help with diversity, they need to be explicitly included and not perceive to be excluded.

I agree with you that whites are not oppressed like blacks once were, I agree with this 100%. Again, whites PERCEIVE they are being discriminated against. So I do not need to show anything.

I do agree that some whites, particularly rural, lower income whites for the most part feel that they are being discriminated against, but it is certainly not universal.

I do think your argument is pretty condescending to white people though, implying that we need to cater to their inaccurate belief systems if we want their vote, and I reject that this is the only path to victory, or even a desirable one. Soft bigotry of low expectations.....Reinforcing someone’s inaccurate beliefs just makes the problem worse in the end. Why not attempt to educate them, or if that doesn’t work, try to improve minority turn out?

I am very hesitant to accept your view, MM, because we are talking about a near-majority group in the population (whites) here: "half of all Americans", including ethnic minorities (even ~33% blacks and Hispanics) "believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people".

Perhaps I am unlearned, but I seriously can not recall an example where, in a democratic setting, a minority actually achieved meaningful and lasting changes for the better, without acknowledging the concerns of the majority group and getting them onboard.

Education might work as another poster suggested, but at this late stage of right vs left identity politics, I am not hopeful at all.

I will now provide some comments on the Cornell study, provided by Guitar: How Political Correctness Influences Creativity in Mixed-Sex Work Groups

The study presents evidence from two group experiments showing that the PC norm promotes rather than suppresses members’ free expression of ideas by reducing the uncertainty they experience in mixed-sex work groups. (PC norm promotes creativity in mixed-sex work groups).

The stat analysis is sound, but I have issues with certain aspects of the study.

1. The participants are students on campus, whom, we know tend to be more liberal/progressive leaning than the general population, therefore more accepting to PC norm. I am unsure the same effects would be observed if the same studies were repeated with a more representative sample population.

2. The task for the participants in the experiment was to generate new business ideas to fill an empty space on campus that was left vacant by a mismanaged restaurant. This makes the results of the study, at best, only applicable to business solutions, and not "bigger" issues like the ones we had been discussing.

3. This is a big one. The performance of the participates is judged based on "creativity" or "novelty of ideas". People very often confuse being innovative and creative with "good". Just because something is creative or novel, doesn't mean it's necessarily good or practical. It's been very well documented that most innovations are great big failures. The study does not even consider the quality of these novel ideas, this is a huge problem when one tries to link creativity to "actually improves things" in general.

Yes, creative work relies on failures, but simply saying new "actually improves things" good is insane. Ideas that actually improves things occupy a very small percentage of new ideas. So please stop linking creativity (there for PC norm) to "actually improving things".

4. Despite the statistical significant improvement in terms of creativity between PC norm and Control (no PC norm) groups in mixed-sex groups. There is NO statistical significant differences between the PC norm mixed-sex group and the Control same-sex group. The PC norm same-sex group performed worse than Control same-sex group. Indicating a very limited situation where PC norm could be of use, and may not be the optimal solution universally.

5. This directly relates to #4, and is my biggest problem with the implication of the study. Suppose we give it the benefit of doubt that PC norm is universally good (not according to study results) and higher creativity means better business solutions or better results (it does not). What exactly are we promoting here?

The authors explicitly linked PC norm with self-censorship: "We focus on the PC norm because it sets relevant expectations for appropriate behavior and uniquely highlights the social sanctions that result from failing to comply with the expectation to avoid language and behavior that may offend women and other underrepresented minorities", "(1) My group censored themselves while generating ideas, (2) My group worried about the words that they used to express themselves while working together, and (3) When suggesting a new idea I tried to avoid offending the otherpeople in the group (α = .78.)."

I am usually reluctant to accept that sometimes civil liberties need to be suspended for security reasons, but I understand sometimes it is the only way and the most rational (utilitarian?) solution. But the implication of this study pushes it to a new area. What exactly is the use of higher creativity in business setting (as this study was based on)? More revenue? More profit? More money?

Also, because There is NO statistical significant differences between the PC norm mixed-sex group and the Control same-sex group. Why then must we go the PC norm route if we can get the same result without self-censorship?

In summary, the Cornell study demonstrates PC norm results in higher creativity in "only" mixed-sex group. Creativity is not always a good thing, in fact, majority creative ideas don't make things better. And if it's creativity we are ultimately after, same-sex work group can achieve just as much without imposing PC norm.

I see the results of this study to be of very limited use and merit, as far as "actually improving things" are concerned.

Note that not once did I take the authors political views into account, because no matter who funded it or what the authors believe, data is data. It should be judged on its own merit. You are more than welcome to attack the data, methodology, and the analysis. But if you have to resort to refuting studies using because it has an "ideology tilt". It's really pointless to go any further.

Next, I will address the concern that the methodology of the Cato study is biased. And an explanation to the irregularities in Murphy's data (provided by Guitar), and how to view the similarities and differences in all three surveys regarding free speech (Cato, Murphy using GSS, Economist).